Oh, just saw your edit, but no apologies necessary. If the small essay I’ve written between all my comments is any indication, I just like talking about fallout. So thanks for the rant actually!

Yeah, I totally concur, a lot of the stories they want to tell fit so much better closer to the bombs.

I also think Bethesda’s need to make sure every story contains the core elements of Super Mutants, the BoS, Deathclaws, Radscorpions, etc is another key issue they have with the lore. When I played 1 and 2, it felt like I was seeing just a small slice of a world that could have any number of crazy new things in it. But now that it’s basically the same thing coast to coast, the world feels stale and predictable.

And you pretty much summed up all my thoughts on the show. The ‘collage of fun scenes’ made it enjoyable. But it was also beyond disrespectful. Throwing away the world built up in 1, 2, and NV just to make it match the key elements of 3 and 4 is… super fucking shitty.

And I really don’t see how they can make it seem like every faction in NV can think they won without also completely invalidating the significance of the choices in NV. But I’m honestly already resigned to Bethesda just killing off that as well tho, so I hope they at least still have a fun collage of scenes.

Bongo

Very true, and that’s one of my favorite elements of the West Coast lore. Honestly, if I could change only one thing about Bethesda’s approach to Fallout, it would be their dogmatic approach to keeping the world locked in time.

I actually enjoyed the show, and am even trying to remain optimistic for season two, but resetting the world-building on the West Coast just to keep the apocalyptic tone really made me sad to see. Killed off a story I loved that had been slowly building since my childhood.

100% agree. A youtuber once summed up the setting pretty perfectly imho. They said something to the effect of

“Fallout isn’t just a post-apocalypse. It’s an example of retro futurism. Specifically, it’s the year 2077, as the people of the 1990’s imagined the people of the 1950’s imagined it. But then, that society got nuked, and the post-apocalypse imagined by the pop-culture of the 80’s and 90’s rose from it’s ashes.”

3’s more standard “post-apocalypse vibes” don’t really nail the vision of the original Fallout. This is especially a negative if you are coming at Fallout from the standpoint of a long time fan. Like I said in my first rant,

“New Vegas has richer world-building, themes more aligned with Fallout 1 and 2, and a more realistic sense of a society rebuilding after centuries”

And yeah, it seems pretty obvious that 3 was meant to be set much earlier in the timeline originally. With Rivet City being the most advanced “from the ground up” society in terms of agriculture simply by having a small hydroponics lab, most of society surviving by scavenging, attempts to cleanup and rebuild at an extremely early or nonexistent stage, etc.

Though I assume that for folks who prefer 3, these are not hills they particularly care about, and that the more generic post-apocalyptic vibes (that were really in vogue when 3 was released) hit the exact fantasy they wanted to play through.

But yeah, I wholeheartedly agree with your points.

Fight me.

Okay, sounds fun.

I could argue that there are more Fallout games than just 1 and 2, and that we should probably admit that if Fallout 2 gets to sit at the “true Fallout” table, Fallout: New Vegas should probably get a chair too. A bunch of the original Black Isle developers who worked on Fallout 2 helped make it, and it continues the same regional story and factions. But then again, maybe having the Fallout 2 developers is not enough to make something “truly” Fallout. Maybe it is the isometric (actually skewed trimetric) view, classic CRPG style. Although once we open that can of radroaches, we get a whole new pile of questions.

So maybe we can swing the other direction entirely and say there are fewer “true” Fallout games, and that only Fallout 1 really qualifies. That does have some logic behind it, since the original creators, Tim Cain, Leonard Boyarsky, and Jason Anderson, left during Fallout 2’s development. Their absence changed the whole design philosophy, shifting the tone, with way more pop culture references and absurdist writing, de-focused the tight world design of 1 so we got a ton of fluff dungeons and encounters, and gave us a more scattered writing experience thanks to the team being split up to work on different sections of the game (Tell me San Fran feels even remotely in the same universe as New Reno). Honestly, the jump from 1 to 2 kinda reminds me of the jump from 3 to NV. They feel the same on the surface, but are radically different experiences once you actually play them. But even then, Fallout 2 still uses the same engine and gameplay loop, so you could just as easily argue it stays true to the original formula.

But if that’s the case and we double down on the ‘gameplay matters more than the writing and development teams’ point of view, then Fallout Nevada and Fallout Sonora belong on the list as well right? They are fan-made, sure, but they run on the same engine and play almost exactly like Fallout 1 and 2. So now we are up to four “true Fallout games.” So our definition needs to rules those out to get back to “only 1 and 2”.

So maybe the fan-made games do not count because they are not official releases? But if it being an “official release” is the only rule, then Fallout 76 suddenly joins the “true Fallout” club too, which probably tells us that the bar has to be higher than that.

So if we say that a “true” Fallout game needs a mix of all the things above, like the original devs from the original studio working on the original engine with the original tone and the closest connection to the original story, then we come full circle and land right back at “Fallout 1 is the only true Fallout game.”

No matter how I slice it, I can’t find a definition that only includes Fallout 1 and 2…

You know… thinking about it, I guess the only constant of every single Fallout game since 2 has been that fans of the previous entry look at it and say “this is too radical a departure, this isn’t a true Fallout at all!”

But I really do mean it when I say I haven’t come across defenders of 3 over New Vegas

Agreed, there are not very many folks still hard Stanning for 3. Though I think a large reason for that is 3 was superseded by Skyrim, and FO4. While NV fans are still kinda waiting on even a true spiritual successor. So NV fans really haven’t moved on, while 3’s fans have long since gone onto other things.

Plus, the things 3 does well kinda makes you “forget about most of it” after a while. Like, I play A Tale of Two Wastelands pretty often, and one thing that stands out about 3’s world is how much of it is just more of the same. It all just blends together. Eventually, the feeling of a real world breaks down, leaving you with a “lot of gameplay with not a lot of substance”

NV’s emphasis on world building and choice on the other-hand makes you think about the game a lot more, even when you put the game down, you can still “play it” just by thinking about how your choices would affect the long term realities of the world.

So while 3’s fans can basically say “Yeah, I really liked that game, the world was fun and stealing the Declaration of Independence from that robot was funny”, NV fans can have full on years long debates of “Independent Vegas vs NCR vs House”, I’ve even seen some mad lads argue that Caesar’s belief that a sufficiently strong opponent to challenge the NCR would force the NCR to address some of the issues they were having as a country was a good idea. These people are of course insane, but you get my point.

All of this really adds up to the fact that NV built a game that is easy to form communities around, and people are excited to talk about, while 3 kinda just built a really solid turn your brain off game.

Edit: Oh, and yeah, 100% agree. More people should play 1 and 2. It’s hard to recommend for fans of Bethesda games to go back to an obscure game from the late 90’s, but like, they’re so fucking good!

Well, take this for what it’s worth since I’m personally of the 1 > NV > 2 > 3 > 4 > Tactics/76 > BoS persuasion, so our preferences probably overlap and I might not be the best person to speak to why some prefer 3. But here’s my best take at why some people might genuinely prefer Fallout 3 over New Vegas.

1. The world is more exploration-friendly.

Fallout 3 drops you near the center of the map, uses fewer invisible walls, and basically lets you run in any direction from the moment you leave the vault. Some of those design choices come at the cost of immersion and a clear sense of progression, but for players who just want to wander and explore, 3 scratches that itch.

New Vegas, by contrast, funnels players through a “racetrack” loop that eventually leads you to the Strip, then sends you outward to deal with the major factions. This structure reinforces the narrative pacing and supports the game’s strong story design, but it does reduce the sense of open-ended freedom.

2. Fallout 3’s dungeons are more extensive.

Most of 3’s dungeons are longer, more combat-heavy, and offer more substantial looting/scavenging opportunities, including bobbleheads and unique gear. While New Vegas has brilliantly written locations (Looking at you Vault 11), many of its buildings amount to one or two rooms, largely due to the game’s famously short development cycle.

For players who enjoy the simple rhythm of clearing out big spaces and gathering loot, Fallout 3 offers more of that classic “delve and scavenge” gameplay, even if its combat system is fairly “mid”.

3. The atmosphere feels more traditionally “post-apocalyptic.”

This one is entirely subjective, but many players feel that Fallout 3’s bleak, bombed-out wasteland better captures the classic “nuclear apocalypse” aesthetic. New Vegas has richer world-building, themes more aligned with Fallout 1 and 2, and a more realistic sense of a society rebuilding after centuries, but its tone is often more eccentric than apocalyptic. For some players, that makes 3 easier to get immersed in.

For the record, I still personally believe New Vegas is the stronger game. (Outside of “atmospheric reasons”) Most of the things Fallout 3 excels at are also done just as well (or better) in Oblivion and Skyrim. But what New Vegas does well, player agency and narrative depth, is something very few non-Isometric CRPG games even attempt, and even fewer do it even half as good. So comparing the two within their respective genre “spiritual siblings”, NV is a exemplary title within its peers, while 3 is kinda just “one of the post Morrowind Bethesda” games (where Skyrim seems to reign as the champion).

Still, Fallout 3 delivers the “meditative, exploration-driven gameplay” that Bethesda built its reputation on from Oblivion onwards. For players who fell in love with that formula (especially those who entered the series with 3), New Vegas can feel like a departure from what they enjoy about the series.

And honestly, that’s one of my favorite things about Fallout: every game is a departure from the last. Fallout 2 shifted the tone dramatically from Fallout 1. Fallout 3 reinvented the franchise entirely. New Vegas reworked 3’s skeleton into something more narrative-focused. Fallout 4 emphasized crafting and building. Fallout 76 went multiplayer. No matter which game is your favorite, each one brings something unique to the table.

Anyway, I could talk about this stuff until the actual apocalypse, but I’ll end it here. But hopefully this helps explain why some people genuinely prefer Fallout 3 over New Vegas.